(PC) McCombs v. Sherman et al

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURTS ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/17/2020 (Show Cause Response; Notice to Court or First Amended Complaint due within 21-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK THOMAS MCCOMBS,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00712-DAD-JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

S. SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

21-DAY DEADLINE

On August 26, 2020, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff, within 21 days,

17

to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading. (Doc. 10.) The Court

18

granted Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time to comply with the screening order on September 26,

19

2020. (Doc. 12.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an

20

amended complaint.

21

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide,

22

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for

23

the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.”

24

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising

25

that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth.,

26

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a

27

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

28

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a

1

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir.

2

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

3

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

4

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of the

5

date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply

6

with a court order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a first amended

7

complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 10) or a notice of

8

voluntary dismissal of this case. Failure to comply with this order will result in a

9

recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to state a claim and to obey a court

10

order.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 17, 2020

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2